highest megapixel camera ever made image
QA Guy
i read an article about hasselblad hd2-39 which has a 39 MP sensor...all these days i thought 10MP was the highest... are there other cameras better than 39MP
Answer
39 Megapixel is the biggest I've seen so far.
The camera you seek is a hasselblad H2D-39.
You can find it on www.bhphotovideo.com
It's only $30,000 so what are you waiting for?
39 Megapixel is the biggest I've seen so far.
The camera you seek is a hasselblad H2D-39.
You can find it on www.bhphotovideo.com
It's only $30,000 so what are you waiting for?
What type of things can i see with these microscope magnifications?
Gonzalo Co
I'm torn between two microscopes. One goes up to 2000,the other goes to 2500. Is there a major difference? What can I see with 2500 that i cant see with 2000 magnification? The 2500 comes with a 1.3mp camera while the 2000 comes with a 3.0mp camera.
Answer
When I was in college, we were using 1000x microscopes to view bacteria, fungal spores, protozoa, and algae cells. The added magnification would let you zoom in on those objects more closely.
But magnification isn't the only feature you should be concerned with. If you've ever looking at something under a microscope of around 1000x (or even under 400x), you might notice that you can't see all of it clearly unless you adjust the focus knob up and down. That's because as you increase the magnification, you decrease the depth of field (the distance between the points nearest and farthest from the viewer that are in focus). So even though you're getting an enlarged view of your subject from side to side, what's in focus from top to bottom is less.
You don't mention resolution, either. That's how closely two objects can be under a microscope that you can tell they're separate objects. The closer they can be that you can make out that they're separate, the better.
The 2000x microscope you list has a better camera as far as megapixels goes, but will you actually use the camera? How large would any images you take be enlarged (if you're planning to do PowerPoint presentations, maybe quite a bit; if you're just capturing images of what you see to print 3 x 5 photos, not much)? The 3.0mp would give you greater ability to enlarge any photos you take without losing as much sharpness in the image. (To get an idea of this if you aren't clear, you can try this on your computer - near the bottom of your internet screen there might be a magnifying glass symbol which allows you to change the zoom on your screen; your screen image is made up of pixels, and by enlarging the image, there will be fewer of them that fit across the screen - but even as you enlarge the image, the image quality suffers; decrease it, and you can fit more pixels acroos, and the image sharpens, even though it's smaller - try it!).
I can appreciate your being torn as to which to buy, but really the only one who can decide which would be best for you is YOU depending on exactly how you would be using it. For myself, I'd probably prefer the one with the lower magnification and higher pixel camera, but that's based on how I use my own microscopes.
When I was in college, we were using 1000x microscopes to view bacteria, fungal spores, protozoa, and algae cells. The added magnification would let you zoom in on those objects more closely.
But magnification isn't the only feature you should be concerned with. If you've ever looking at something under a microscope of around 1000x (or even under 400x), you might notice that you can't see all of it clearly unless you adjust the focus knob up and down. That's because as you increase the magnification, you decrease the depth of field (the distance between the points nearest and farthest from the viewer that are in focus). So even though you're getting an enlarged view of your subject from side to side, what's in focus from top to bottom is less.
You don't mention resolution, either. That's how closely two objects can be under a microscope that you can tell they're separate objects. The closer they can be that you can make out that they're separate, the better.
The 2000x microscope you list has a better camera as far as megapixels goes, but will you actually use the camera? How large would any images you take be enlarged (if you're planning to do PowerPoint presentations, maybe quite a bit; if you're just capturing images of what you see to print 3 x 5 photos, not much)? The 3.0mp would give you greater ability to enlarge any photos you take without losing as much sharpness in the image. (To get an idea of this if you aren't clear, you can try this on your computer - near the bottom of your internet screen there might be a magnifying glass symbol which allows you to change the zoom on your screen; your screen image is made up of pixels, and by enlarging the image, there will be fewer of them that fit across the screen - but even as you enlarge the image, the image quality suffers; decrease it, and you can fit more pixels acroos, and the image sharpens, even though it's smaller - try it!).
I can appreciate your being torn as to which to buy, but really the only one who can decide which would be best for you is YOU depending on exactly how you would be using it. For myself, I'd probably prefer the one with the lower magnification and higher pixel camera, but that's based on how I use my own microscopes.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Whats the highest megapixel camera ever made ?
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment